From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Marrero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 5, 1989
156 A.D.2d 141 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

December 5, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred Eggert, J.).


In this prosecution of the defendant for second degree murder and attempted second degree murder arising as a result of the shooting and death of Antonio Couso at 178th Street and Hughes Avenue, Bronx County, and the subsequent shooting of potential witness Cesar Molina at 183rd Street and Crotona Avenue, Bronx County, the court below properly permitted the introduction of evidence and testimony concerning a prior negative lineup, where defense counsel had "opened the door" to admission of that evidence by, on cross-examination, repeatedly challenging Nelson Couso's ability to accurately identify the defendant as the assailant. (People v Bolden, 58 N.Y.2d 741.)

Moreover, the court acted within its discretion in denying defendant's request for a second interpreter where, during the pretrial and trial proceedings, the court was forced to utilize defendant's interpreter to translate the testimony of two witnesses. The record below reveals that the defendant was able to understand the testimony of the two Spanish-speaking witnesses without an interpreter and that the court specifically permitted defendant's interpreter to return to the defense table during the testimony of the two witnesses so as to permit meaningful communication between defendant and his counsel, thereby preserving defendant's right to counsel and right to assist in his own defense. (People v Ramos, 26 N.Y.2d 272; People v Navarro, 134 A.D.2d 460 [2d Dept 1987].)

Moreover, we are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction", we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305.)

Finally, the remaining contentions of the defendant were not preserved as a matter of law and we therefore decline to reach them. Were we to consider them, however, in the interest of justice, we would nonetheless affirm, finding them to be without merit.

Concur — Ross, J.P., Asch, Milonas, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Marrero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 5, 1989
156 A.D.2d 141 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Marrero

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH MARRERO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 5, 1989

Citations

156 A.D.2d 141 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
548 N.Y.S.2d 188

Citing Cases

State v. Gonzales-Morales

Id. 156 A.D.2d 141, 548 N.Y.S.2d 188 (1989), appeal denied, 75 N.Y.2d 921, 554 N.E.2d 77 (1990). Id. at…

State v. Gonzales-Morales

ment rights, but noting not at issue where judge permitted defendant to interrupt proceedings to confer with…